Discussion:
The Case Against Liberal Compassion
(too old to reply)
Clave
2017-02-24 16:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
Kevrob
2017-02-24 16:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or a doctor
of divinity.

"Charity" compelled by the government isn't charity in the Christian
sense, anyway. I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my
taxed that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."

Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."

Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-01 21:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or a doctor
of divinity.
"Charity" compelled by the government isn't charity in the Christian
sense, anyway. I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my
taxed that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."
Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."
Kevin R
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is not charity.
It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the government, especially not a government that has morphed into the monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.

Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is spent on salaries.
Davej
2017-03-01 22:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat
of prison is not charity.
It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the government...
Yeah, why do we have public roads and public libraries? It's
just charity.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-02 01:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Clave
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating
that old people starve and that old and poor people just
be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or
a doctor of divinity. "Charity" compelled by the
government isn't charity in the Christian sense, anyway.
I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my taxed
that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."
Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny. Charity
is not the job of the government, especially not a
government that has morphed into the monster we have now.
It makes no sense to found a government based on the idea
of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening
practically since the moment the ink dried on the
Constitution.
Exactly.

And we've got to do something about that...

And do something fast!

The truth is, America has never truely lived-up to her lofty
ideals of individual liberty. And although we came very
close in the initial days (thanks, in most part, to our
high-minded and articulate founders, of which, modern-day
politicians cannot hold a fucking candle to!), the stain of
slavery and the continued oppression of certain classes
(thanks to the vile influence of theism), rendered the
implementation of those famous and poetic "appeals to
liberty" into nothing more than a scientifically observable
"hypocrisy in action".

If one wants to become enlightened by the knowledge of what
these "lofty ideals" represent, these "ideals" that form the
ideological basis from which _all_ liberty springs forth, then
one need look no further than those famous 35 words encoded
in the American Declaration Of Independence.

(modernized)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
[people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their
[existence] with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

And if "we the people", find that our "social
implementation" does not mesh perfectly with this
fundamental definition -- this *KERNEL*, this *SEED* -- then
we will *KNOW* that we have erred. And once we have
acknowledged our error, the same document informs us of what
we should do next.

"[...] -- that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among [the people], deriving their just powers
from the _consent_ of the governed ("consent" being a key
word here!), — that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the *RIGHT* of
the people to alter or to abolish it (meaning: abolish the
government), and to institute (from it's smoldering
fucking ashes!) *new* government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them (the people) shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness."

We find ourselves today, in the "year of our non-existent
lord 2017", in much the same precarious predicament as our
founders were some 200+ years ago. And today, just as then,
the slow creep of tyranny and the ever expanding slimy
tenticles of government bureaucracies have transformed our
fundamental rights into a self-induced hypocrisy.

We have fellow citizens, at this very moment, wasting away
in prison cells for nothing more than ingesting or
possessing a substance that our government has deemed
prohibited. We waste billions of dollars fighting fruitless
domestic wars in the name of false "justice". We have
convinced our citizens that their own body does not belong
to them (if not them, then who could it possibly belong
to?). And we have legalized the theft of hard earned labor
capital from those who are productive, so that the same
capital can be given to those who refuse to be.

How much further must we go before we realize that we've
fallen off the tracks?

What *IS* "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Is it merely the monotone words of a random child standing
on a random grade-school stage reenacting the events of our
forefathers for the sake of mere "cute spectacle"?

Or is it something more?

I believe it be...

I believe it to be one of the most profound realizations of
social justice that the human mind has ever conceived. A
culmination of many thousand years of trial and error, and
the product of much pain and suffering. The american
declaration of independence marks an epoch in our collective
human intellectual evolution, a specific time when a flash
of profundity rendered the blurry concept of "self-evident
social contracts" crystal clear -- for _all_ to see.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity,
not government which spends 75% of any money collected for
ANY project is spent on salaries.
It is impossible to legislate morality. And anyone who
claims to "bestow compassion in your name", is both a liar
and a thief. (In america, we call these fowl critters
politicians)
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-03-02 05:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.

This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-02 09:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-03-02 12:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
Anyone who expects to live in and benefit from a society and pay no
taxes is a loon (irrational, very poor judgment).

OTOH, there is no verifiable evidence, none whatsoever, of any god(s).
Siri Cruise
2017-03-02 15:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
Anyone who expects to live in and benefit from a society and pay no
taxes is a loon (irrational, very poor judgment).
OTOH, there is no verifiable evidence, none whatsoever, of any god(s).
Thanks for this demonstration of tribalism.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 09:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
Anyone who expects to live in and benefit from a society and pay no
taxes is a loon (irrational, very poor judgment).
Who said anything about not paying any taxes? You are assuming there would be no benefits in society without government taxing people to provide them.

I have more confidence in my fellow humans I guess. I think if you let people take care of things, they usually will. Does there need to electricity flowing into homes and businesses? Somebody will build it and make a profit from it and take better care of it than government or government regulated monopolies.

Maybe you think the way the California state government is working is a good example, but I assure it isn't. There is a veto-proof majority in the legislature so that any law the Democrats desire to pass, (as long as it doesn't upset any unions)will pass. That is the way it works, if a law isn't OK with the unions it will never see the light of day.

Does it not boggle your mind that something like 50% of the workforce is employed by some agency of government, from local to federal?
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
OTOH, there is no verifiable evidence, none whatsoever, of any god(s).
But there is plenty of evidence that people thrive when they are allowed to be free. I don't think we are as free as we should be. I think that anybody should be able to do anything they want with their own body. I think property tax is evil. I think the fewer things that are in the hands of politicians, the better. YMMV
Siri Cruise
2017-03-04 12:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I have more confidence in my fellow humans I guess. I think if you let
people take care of things, they usually will. Does there need to
electricity flowing into homes and businesses? Somebody will build it and
make a profit from it and take better care of it than government or
government regulated monopolies.
So.....actual history is not facts and evidence when it shows you're spewing
horsecrap?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Don Kresch
2017-03-04 12:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I have more confidence in my fellow humans I guess. I think if you let
people take care of things, they usually will. Does there need to
electricity flowing into homes and businesses? Somebody will build it and
make a profit from it and take better care of it than government or
government regulated monopolies.
So.....actual history is not facts and evidence when it shows you're spewing
horsecrap?
Actual history supports him.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-04 20:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 4:44:31 AM UTC-8, !! Atheist
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
Anyone who expects to live in and benefit from a society and pay no
taxes is a loon (irrational, very poor judgment).
Who said anything about not paying any taxes? You are assuming there would
be no benefits in society without government taxing people to provide them.
I have more confidence in my fellow humans I guess. I think if you let
people take care of things, they usually will. Does there need to
electricity flowing into homes and businesses? Somebody will build it and
make a profit from it and take better care of it than government or
government regulated monopolies.
Not when profits are down.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-04 20:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 4:44:31 AM UTC-8, !! Atheist
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
So he's smart if he agrees with you, and a loon if no.
Anyone who expects to live in and benefit from a society and pay no
taxes is a loon (irrational, very poor judgment).
Who said anything about not paying any taxes? You are assuming there would
be no benefits in society without government taxing people to provide them.
I have more confidence in my fellow humans I guess. I think if you let
people take care of things, they usually will. Does there need to
electricity flowing into homes and businesses? Somebody will build it and
make a profit from it and take better care of it than government or
government regulated monopolies.
Maybe you think the way the California state government is working is a good
example, but I assure it isn't. There is a veto-proof majority in the
legislature so that any law the Democrats desire to pass, (as long as it
doesn't upset any unions)will pass. That is the way it works, if a law isn't
OK with the unions it will never see the light of day.
Does it not boggle your mind that something like 50% of the workforce is
employed by some agency of government, from local to federal?
Absolutely not.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Kevrob
2017-03-02 22:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
CH is a pretty standard libertarian, in US terms. Maybe more of an
Objectivist, as he likes to quote Rand. That puts him (and me!) off
in a corner of the 2-dimensional political map, which some people
can't see, only being able to understand a line or "spectrum."

It's like when the 3-D being falls into Abbott's "Flatland." :) !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

What it proves, to jerks like JTEM, is that there is no
"atheist collective." Besides differences we have between
implicit and explicit atheists, and atheists and agnostics,
once we get off the ghod-issue we have different opinions.
We may have a preponderance of social democrats/socialists
due to the embrace by Marx and marxists of atheism in the
19th century, but there is no requirement to be a non-believer
if one is, frex, a "left-wing" US Democrat or a "Green", nor is
one prevented from being an atheist if one is a free market
advocate.

There's no reason why libraries can't be private. I've belonged
to a couple that are owned boy non-profit private corporations.
the country would have been better off if Carnegie had made all
his library grants to such like.

Kevin R

[The most hardcore agorists want to sell the roads. :) ]
Don Martin
2017-03-02 23:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
CH is a pretty standard libertarian, in US terms. Maybe more of an
Objectivist, as he likes to quote Rand. That puts him (and me!) off
in a corner of the 2-dimensional political map, which some people
can't see, only being able to understand a line or "spectrum."
It's like when the 3-D being falls into Abbott's "Flatland." :) !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
What it proves, to jerks like JTEM, is that there is no
"atheist collective." Besides differences we have between
implicit and explicit atheists, and atheists and agnostics,
once we get off the ghod-issue we have different opinions.
We may have a preponderance of social democrats/socialists
due to the embrace by Marx and marxists of atheism in the
19th century, but there is no requirement to be a non-believer
if one is, frex, a "left-wing" US Democrat or a "Green", nor is
one prevented from being an atheist if one is a free market
advocate.
There's no reason why libraries can't be private. I've belonged
to a couple that are owned boy non-profit private corporations.
the country would have been better off if Carnegie had made all
his library grants to such like.
"He left River City the library building,
But he left all the books to HER!"

Meredith Willson, _The Music Man_
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
uɐɯ ɐɥɔʇıɐpɐʞ
2017-03-03 09:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob, a slippery and lying hellish dog dumb-show. Ye are a
spur-galled gross patchery, a second-rate notable pirate, a pribbling
Post by Kevrob
What it proves, to jerks like JTEM, is that there is no
"atheist collective."
The word collective is a euphemism for tribalism, as in atheista tribalism.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 09:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
Thank you for that reasoned critique.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-04 09:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cloud Hobbit, base dunghill villain, I'll have thy head. Ye awful
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of
prison [can be considered] charity. It is tyranny.
"Cloud Hobbit" is a looney tune when he gets off the topic of religion.
This is not a mere disagreement; his reasoning is that of a loon.
Thank you for that reasoned critique.
I've been saying it since your first post in aa, you fucking loon.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-02 02:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people
starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get
sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or a doctor
of divinity.
"Charity" compelled by the government isn't charity in the Christian
sense, anyway. I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my
taxed that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."
Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."
Kevin R
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is not charity.
It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the government, especially not a
government that has morphed into the monster we have now. It makes no sense
to found a government based on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly
but surely remove those liberties, which is what has been happening
practically since the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not government
which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is spent on salaries.
And private charity has ALWAYS left millions dead and dying. No
organization is big enough to keep people alive and healthy except the
government.

We don't let people die in the street in great masses anymore.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-02 05:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people
starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get
sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or a doctor
of divinity.
"Charity" compelled by the government isn't charity in the Christian
sense, anyway. I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my
taxed that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."
Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."
Kevin R
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is not charity.
It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the government, especially not a
government that has morphed into the monster we have now. It makes no sense
to found a government based on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly
but surely remove those liberties, which is what has been happening
practically since the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not government
which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is spent on salaries.
And private charity has ALWAYS left millions dead and dying. No
organization is big enough to keep people alive and healthy except the
government.
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You are saying that we the people should have the government force people to contribute money for eh care of people that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the first place.

I don't understand how anybody can not see that no matter how much benefit you think is derived from having government force take of things that people wouldn't do without force, it is still immoral.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
We don't let people die in the street in great masses anymore.
Yes we do, only now we've made the government responsible for things that should be each individual person's responsibility and then we complain that they are not spending enough of somebody else's money to solve it. Nobody wants to see people dying in the street, but that doesn't make it OK to FORCE anyone to pay for their maintenance. It just creates new avenues for fraud and why would you want something like the government doing this kind of job when they can't even take decent care of those they have sworn to take care of, Veterans.

I give to charity whenever I feel it appropriate, mostly to the Arthritis Foundation because I know the damage it can do. I always throw my change in the slot at McDonald's, but I refuse to be happy or complacent about the fact that the government thinks it has the right to force me to contribute beyond what I would freely choose.

The unintended consequence of taxing people to force compassion out of them is that people have less money. Typically the feds take about 35% in total out of a paycheck. Imagine what you could do with a 35% pay increase.
It never seems to dawn on the people passing the new ways to spend the taxpayers money, that they at the same time causing economic hardship which they will then want a new tax to fix. It never ends.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
JD
"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-03-02 08:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Typically the feds take about 35% in total out of a paycheck. Imagine what
you could do with a 35% pay increase.
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved roads.

you fucking moron
Rick Johnson
2017-03-02 13:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Typically the feds take about 35% in total out of a
paycheck. Imagine what you could do with a 35% pay
increase.
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.

Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.

For instance: even if a taxpayer does not own or drive a
vehicle (which is a rare these days), the road systems
provide a means by which a modern economy could not hope to
function without. OTOH, giving food stamps and free housing
to layabouts only benefits layabouts, which has the negative
effect of creating dependancy where none would otherwise
exist. And, for those who give away free money, has the
effect of undermining our electorial system via "vote
farming".

And the propaganda that "welfare stimulates the economy" is
just that, propaganda. If taxpayers were relieved of this
onerous welfare burden, they wouldn't stash the extra cash
under a freaking mattress, no, they'd spend it! However, in
the latter case, they would spend the cash in manner that
most benefited *THEM*.

So welfare systems not only create dependency and *DO NOT*
stimulate the economy (not any more than would be stimulated
without them), but they also have the effect of undermining
free market economics and destroying the "natural charitable
nature" among the productive class by stealing the fruits of
their labor in the false name of compassion. I ask you: how
could the victim of a legalized robbery ever have compassion
for either the thief who robbed them or the recipients of
the stolen goods? Such foolish assumptions defy all logic...
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
(snip: immature personal attack)
Davej
2017-03-02 15:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-03-02 15:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola taking root in
a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those with private insurance who
still die.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-04 23:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.

There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows. I'm not against helping people, i'm
against giving people _free_ help.

Which is the reason why i've always supported subsidizing
the treatments of contagious disease and emergency medical
care for those who do not have the means to pay, because, it
is virtually impossible for one to avoid contagions and
horrible accidents can and do happen to all of us. OTOH i am
firmly against subsidizing ailments that are caused by
unhealthy lifestyle choices (such as: poor diet, obesity,
smoking, drinking, etc...), or incidents that could have
been avoided (mountain climbing, racing, erotic
asphyxiation, etc...). In the latter case, the sick or
injured would still be treated, but payment would be
demanded afterwards.

So the only aspect of welfare that really bugs me is the
tendency of our governments to just willy-nilly give away
money like some cheesy TV game show host while never
expecting that some of this money, or _all_ of it, should be
paid back. So instead of just giving away free money, why
can't we extend to the less fortunate an interest-free loan?
I would be okay with that. And if the borrower is unable to
pay, say, a $500,000 medical bill. Okay, fair enough. Make
them pay half. Or one quarter. Or whatever is within their
means to pay each month. If they are able to work, put them
to work. Or if they own something of value that can be sold,
call in the auctioneer...

I assure you, we can be compassionate to both the victim
*AND* to those who rendered aid to the victim. It's called
an economy. And it works best when workers are compensated
for their labor.

It is not heartless to demand that workers are compensated,
but it is heartless to steal from one person to give to
another.

PS: Loan is synonomous with help.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-04 23:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rick Johnson, ye that is likest to a dull thread. Ye bigheaded fat
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows. I'm not against helping people, i'm
against giving people _free_ help.
Define "_free_ help".
Post by Rick Johnson
Which is the reason why i've always supported subsidizing
the treatments of contagious disease and emergency medical
care for those who do not have the means to pay, because, it
is virtually impossible for one to avoid contagions and
horrible accidents can and do happen to all of us.
You advocate treatments of contagious disease only so you don't catch a
contagious disease.
Post by Rick Johnson
OTOH i am
firmly against subsidizing ailments that are caused by
unhealthy lifestyle choices (such as: poor diet, obesity,
smoking, drinking, etc...), or incidents that could have
been avoided (mountain climbing, racing, erotic
asphyxiation, etc...). In the latter case, the sick or
injured would still be treated, but payment would be
demanded afterwards.
So the only aspect of welfare that really bugs me is the
tendency of our governments to just willy-nilly give away
money like some cheesy TV game show host while never
expecting that some of this money, or _all_ of it, should be
paid back. So instead of just giving away free money, why
can't we extend to the less fortunate an interest-free loan?
I would be okay with that. And if the borrower is unable to
pay, say, a $500,000 medical bill. Okay, fair enough. Make
them pay half. Or one quarter. Or whatever is within their
means to pay each month. If they are able to work, put them
to work. Or if they own something of value that can be sold,
call in the auctioneer...
I assure you, we can be compassionate to both the victim
*AND* to those who rendered aid to the victim. It's called
an economy. And it works best when workers are compensated
for their labor.
It is not heartless to demand that workers are compensated,
but it is heartless to steal from one person to give to
another.
Caring for fellow humans is called altruism, and altruism is behaviour
that benefits another at your own expense. Furthermore it is an innate
human attribute, and is a core aspect of western secular worldviews.
Even apes look after their toothless old grandmothers who can no longer
feed themselves.

There must be something seriously wrong with you to believe that
altruism is some kind of theft, you utterly selfish blood, shit, saliva,
snot, sweat, urine and jizz stain on a whore's bedsheets.
Post by Rick Johnson
PS: Loan is synonomous with help.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Don Kresch
2017-03-05 00:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Post by Rick Johnson
I'm not against helping people, i'm
against giving people _free_ help.
Then you contradict yourself.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-05 00:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don Kresch, ye butcher's cur, thou art venom mouthed. Ye indecent
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Of course not, but then altruism is an alien concept to you.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-05 02:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don Kresch, ye butcher's cur, thou art venom mouthed. Ye indecent
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Of course not, but then altruism is an alien concept to you.
Every Randroid knows that altruism is the root of all evil.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-05 02:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don Kresch, ye butcher's cur, thou art venom mouthed. Ye indecent
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Of course not, but then altruism is an alien concept to you.
Every Randroid knows that altruism is the root of all evil.
And that's why they're all sociopaths.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-05 02:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Siri Cruise, ye out Herrod Herrod. Thou art a parasite-infested mere
dumb-show, a deranged censurer, a jaded pernicious usurer, a
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don Kresch, ye butcher's cur, thou art venom mouthed. Ye indecent
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Davej
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor
paved roads.
Not true. Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas
welfare benefits only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking
hellhole where children are starving in the street then go
pack up and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Healthcare benefits all. Think of a disease like Ebola
taking root in a poor urban ghetto and spreading to those
with private insurance who still die.
A valid and reasonable argument.
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Of course not, but then altruism is an alien concept to you.
Every Randroid knows that altruism is the root of all evil.
My view is that if nutjob randroids, like nutjob vegans and vegetarians,
ever once stopped to think about how they came to their position, they
would realise they were objecting to the very same ideologies, systems
or mechanisms that got them to the point where they could make those
decisions in the first place. Hence in evolutionary terms, it's one step
forward and two steps back. Clearly they do not think.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Alex W.
2017-03-05 02:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Don Kresch, ye butcher's cur, thou art venom mouthed. Ye indecent
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 15:02:27 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Of course not, but then altruism is an alien concept to you.
It's not even about altruism.

The responsibility to contribute to a minimum level of well-being of our
fellow citizens is no more and certainly no less than enlightened
self-interest. Sharing the burden of a minimum level of security,
welfare and health in our fellow man makes *us* more secure and healthy.
When my taxes go to pay for the police, the fire brigade or the
ambulance services, I do so knowing that these will be there to help not
just every freeloader, slacker or welfare sponger but will help *me*
when I need them.

Not to mention that for the vast majority of us, we ourselves may be in
the same needy situation before we know it. When the universe decides
to take a dump all over our snug little lives, it doesn't take much to
send oh so many of us down the same path as the homeless unemployed bum
living off soup kitchens, shelters and other hand-outs. So this
"charity" is really a form of insurance: I pay for a safety net for all
so that if and when I myself have need, it will be there for me as well.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-05 00:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Rick Johnson
[...]
There are many aspects of "collective welfare" that cannot
be ignored, and while i am generally against any type of
"coerced charity" (aka: welfare via taxation), i also
realize that we do live in a society, and as such, we all
have a "duty" to contribute to the well-being of our "less
fortunate" fellows.
No, there is no such duty.
Have you no ethics, man? O_O

Consider this scenario: If you were walking down the street,
and you witnessed a pedestrian stuck down by a hit-and-run
driver, and the victim called out for you to wrap a
tourniquet on his wound, what would you do?

(1) Ignore the victim and walk away.

(2) Remove your shirt and use it as a tourniquet.

(3) Use your concealed weapon to "put the poor sap out of
his misery", and then bill his family for the cost of a
single bullet and a professional gun cleaning, and then
spend the rest of the day bitching to everyone within
earshot about how your day was totally fucked by some
random asshole who couldn't have the common decency to
avoid being run over.

(4) Something else entirely? Perhaps even kinky?

Not judging you, of course. And from the universal
perspective, there really are no right or wrong answers. So
please answer honestly. Nothing offends me.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Rick Johnson
I'm not against helping people, i'm against giving people
_free_ help.
Then you contradict yourself.
Care to explain how extending a helping hand to others while
simultaneously understanding that economies can't function
on "good will" alone, is contradictory? How is one to apply
ethical logic to a system that is devoid of it? And please,
feel free to write more than one short sentence. As the
material girl famously said, "you've got to express
yourself!".
Siri Cruise
2017-03-02 19:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Welfare subsidises consumption; since the US economy is driven by consumption
not investment or production, having more consumers helps everyone. Food stamps
are run by Agriculture instead of something like HHS since their primary goal is
to buy food from farmers to keep farmers in business.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-02 21:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Davej
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Welfare subsidises consumption; since the US economy is driven by consumption
not investment or production, having more consumers helps everyone. Food stamps
are run by Agriculture instead of something like HHS since their primary goal is
to buy food from farmers to keep farmers in business.
Yep. Unemployment insurance puts billions right back into the economy.
And SNAP allows grocery stores to hire more people, some of whom might
have been on SNAP themselves before. Every dollar of SNAP returns about
$1.80 to the economy in economic activity. Every dollar of unemployment
insurance puts about $1.50 back into the economy. Jobs are created and
people get out of poverty.

Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Kevrob
2017-03-02 22:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Davej
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Welfare subsidises consumption; since the US economy is driven by consumption
not investment or production, having more consumers helps everyone. Food stamps
are run by Agriculture instead of something like HHS since their primary goal is
to buy food from farmers to keep farmers in business.
Anyone familiar with the political alliance between
Bob Dole (KS) and George McGovern (SD) to get that passed
knows that. It is the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of welfare.
There's chocolate (farm subsidy) and peanut butter (freebies
for the poor.)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Yep. Unemployment insurance puts billions right back into the economy.
And SNAP allows grocery stores to hire more people, some of whom might
have been on SNAP themselves before. Every dollar of SNAP returns about
$1.80 to the economy in economic activity. Every dollar of unemployment
insurance puts about $1.50 back into the economy. Jobs are created and
people get out of poverty.
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.

I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment insurance, but
to refer to those payments as "welfare," at least the non-extended, base
payments, would be as unfair as referring to Social Security retirement
benefits as welfare. One earns both benefits by working: the employer
pays foo all the UI premiums, and half the SS ones, but the effect is
the same as if wages were proportionately higher and the premiums came
100% from the worker's paycheck.

Only benefits unconnected to the pay-in should be considered "welfare."

Kevin R
Carl Kaufmann
2017-03-03 15:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 4:42:05 PM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article
Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 2:43:18 AM UTC-6, !! Atheist
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter benefits
everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole where
children are starving in the street then go pack up and move to
an appropriate hellhole.
Welfare subsidises consumption; since the US economy is driven by
consumption not investment or production, having more consumers
helps everyone. Food stamps are run by Agriculture instead of
something like HHS since their primary goal is to buy food from
farmers to keep farmers in business.
Anyone familiar with the political alliance between Bob Dole (KS) and
George McGovern (SD) to get that passed knows that. It is the
Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of welfare. There's chocolate (farm
subsidy) and peanut butter (freebies for the poor.)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Yep. Unemployment insurance puts billions right back into the
economy. And SNAP allows grocery stores to hire more people, some
of whom might have been on SNAP themselves before. Every dollar of
SNAP returns about $1.80 to the economy in economic activity. Every
dollar of unemployment insurance puts about $1.50 back into the
economy. Jobs are created and people get out of poverty.
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past the
point of diminishing returns.
In the U.S. the right is utterly convinced that no matter how much taxes
are reduced, that we are still on the right-hand side of the Laffer curve.
I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment insurance,
but to refer to those payments as "welfare," at least the
non-extended, base payments, would be as unfair as referring to
Social Security retirement benefits as welfare. One earns both
benefits by working: the employer pays foo all the UI premiums, and
half the SS ones, but the effect is the same as if wages were
proportionately higher and the premiums came 100% from the worker's
paycheck.
Only benefits unconnected to the pay-in should be considered
"welfare."
Kevin R
Alex W.
2017-03-04 06:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people. If you are
left of centre, the instinct will always be focused on social justice
and making rich folk "pay a fair share".
Post by Kevrob
I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment insurance, but
to refer to those payments as "welfare," at least the non-extended, base
payments, would be as unfair as referring to Social Security retirement
benefits as welfare. One earns both benefits by working: the employer
pays foo all the UI premiums, and half the SS ones, but the effect is
the same as if wages were proportionately higher and the premiums came
100% from the worker's paycheck.
There's a bit of loose thinking there, I believe. Paying into state-run
and mandatory safety nets such as unemployment insurance or pensions
does not mean you have earned what is being paid out to you if and when
you qualify. What you earn is an *entitlement* to draw on such services
-- the actual value of which is quite unrelated to the amount you paid
in. Case in point: my grandfather worked in the civil service for
almost all his life. When he retired at 63, he received a pension of
67% of his last salary. He continued to receive this hugely generous
remuneration until he died aged 99. There is NO WAY that the pension
contributions made by him and his employer (the state) could possibly
have matched the sums paid out to him.
Kevrob
2017-03-05 01:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Post by Alex W.
If you are
left of centre, the instinct will always be focused on social justice
and making rich folk "pay a fair share".
The "fair share" is always a moving target that translates
to "more." Clever accounting, crony capitalism writing
special privileges for certain industries into the tax
code and capital flight tends to thwart the money grabs.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment insurance, but
to refer to those payments as "welfare," at least the non-extended, base
payments, would be as unfair as referring to Social Security retirement
benefits as welfare. One earns both benefits by working: the employer
pays foo all the UI premiums, and half the SS ones, but the effect is
the same as if wages were proportionately higher and the premiums came
100% from the worker's paycheck.
There's a bit of loose thinking there, I believe. Paying into state-run
and mandatory safety nets such as unemployment insurance or pensions
does not mean you have earned what is being paid out to you if and when
you qualify. What you earn is an *entitlement* to draw on such services
-- the actual value of which is quite unrelated to the amount you paid
in. Case in point: my grandfather worked in the civil service for
almost all his life. When he retired at 63, he received a pension of
67% of his last salary. He continued to receive this hugely generous
remuneration until he died aged 99. There is NO WAY that the pension
contributions made by him and his employer (the state) could possibly
have matched the sums paid out to him.
Oh, that's certainly the case. Meanwhile, someone who dies the day
after he starts collecting Social Security, or even before, has been
cheated in a way someone who had similar amounts into a private
retirement schemes, that pays out something to his estate should
that happen, isn't. Yes, there is a benefit for a surviving spouse,
ex-spouse and surviving minor children, but as a single, childless
fellow, of I kicked off, my designated heir(s) would get bupkis.

The mythology of these programs is that they are insurance schemes.
Private pensions in the US tended to start at 65. Bismarck started
the first government version at 79. It was changed to 65 later.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-retirement-was-invented/381802/

Increased average life expectancy has put the US SS accounts out of
whack over the years, leading to changes in tax rates and the
portion of income subject to the tax, and to the retirement age.

http://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

Kevin R
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-05 01:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
And leaves all of us regular folk having to make up for the money that
the tax evaders don't pay--fucking traitors. They use all the resources
available in the US but they refuse to pay anything toward it.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Kevrob
2017-03-05 02:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
And leaves all of us regular folk
I'm one of those.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
having to make up for the money that
the tax evaders don't pay--fucking traitors.
Treason is much narrower a crime than that.

[quote]



Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted
of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment
of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption
of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.

[/quote] Article III, section 3, US Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

Traitor is too strong. I believe the left-wing tradition
allows for "wrecker" and "parasite," even "kulak."
Post by Jeanne Douglas
They use all the resources
available in the US but they refuse to pay anything toward it.
But as they are charged, not in proportion to the use of
public resources, but on a graduated scale, there is natural
justice in their resisting such extreme exactions.

This country was founded on resistance to unjust taxation.
It is in our blood and bone, intellectually speaking,
that is.

Kevin R
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-05 02:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
And leaves all of us regular folk
I'm one of those.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
having to make up for the money that
the tax evaders don't pay--fucking traitors.
Treason is much narrower a crime than that.
[quote]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted
of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment
of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption
of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.
[/quote] Article III, section 3, US Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#
Section_3:_Treason
Traitor is too strong. I believe the left-wing tradition
allows for "wrecker" and "parasite," even "kulak."
Post by Jeanne Douglas
They use all the resources
available in the US but they refuse to pay anything toward it.
But as they are charged, not in proportion to the use of
public resources, but on a graduated scale, there is natural
justice in their resisting such extreme exactions.
This country was founded on resistance to unjust taxation.
It is in our blood and bone, intellectually speaking,
that is.
Completely paying zero taxes by stashing your money overseas has nothing
to do with unjust taxation. It's pure greed and sociopathy, thinking you
can take advantage of everything the US offers without paying for it.
That makes them thieves, as well as traitors. Traitors for purposely
weakening the US and making it easier for other countries to take
advantage.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Siri Cruise
2017-03-05 02:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
But what it does for you is not enough.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-05 02:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob, that is a perilous shot out of an elder gun. Thou art a
bawling heap of wrath, a swag-bellied censurer, a biting bug-riddled
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Then emigrate to Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-05 03:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kevrob
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Then emigrate to Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
Idiots always whine about wasteful government spending. What is wasteful
government spending? That which benefits Them but not Us. None of various We are
willing to give up the government spending which is the very necessity of life.
Really reducing spending requires every single person take a hit, but no one
wants to do that--they want the lazy bastard over there to take the hit for them.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-05 03:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Siri Cruise, thy ambition, which swelled so much, did almost stretch
the sides of the world. Ye rancorous jealous o'erworn widow, ye
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kevrob
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Then emigrate to Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
Idiots always whine about wasteful government spending. What is wasteful
government spending? That which benefits Them but not Us. None of various We are
willing to give up the government spending which is the very necessity of life.
Really reducing spending requires every single person take a hit, but no one
wants to do that--they want the lazy bastard over there to take the hit for them.
I agree.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Kevrob
2017-03-05 03:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kevrob
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Then emigrate to Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
Neither Zimbabwe nor Venezuela qualify as "free market
paradises."

I'm not telling you how to run Australia.

Kevin R
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-05 04:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob, I abhor thee, thou dilatory sloth. Ye clapper-clawed thief
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kevrob
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
Then emigrate to Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
Neither Zimbabwe nor Venezuela qualify as "free market
paradises."
Your utopian "free market paradises", like the the gods of religion,
don't exist. Second, the black market, while not completely free, does
represent an actual effort to trade more freely than a particular
government might otherwise allow. I hear the black market is alive and
well in both those countries.
Post by Kevrob
I'm not telling you how to run Australia.
I wasn't telling you how to run America, dipshit.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Alex W.
2017-03-05 03:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
There's the whole "Laffer curve" marginal tax rate theory: it isn't
whether tax rates should go up or down, but whether they are past
the point of diminishing returns.
Which is only of marginal interest to those who actually set the tax
rates, I'm afraid. The priorities when determining tax rates are
political perception and ideology. Put simply, if you (or your
constituency) are ideologically opposed to taxes, the only acceptable
movement is only ever going to be downward regardless of the actual and
real and legitimate needs of government and the people.
As I think the government tries to do too much, I would favor
much lower rates, but spending would have to be reduced to match
the reduced revenue. I admit that is a hard sell to those who are
used to the state spending large %s of GDP.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, the US is already a low-tax country.
You have government at every level operating on what are shoestring
levels to ensure that the whole apparatus and infrastructure of the
global superpower that is the US keeps ticking over. How much less do
you really think you can afford? Your roads and travel infrastructure
is already woefully inadequate. Past decisions by governments to make
up for tax revenue shortfalls by borrowing means that you do have high
levels of sovereign debt, and that too much of the tax revenue goes
towards servicing that debt.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
If you are
left of centre, the instinct will always be focused on social justice
and making rich folk "pay a fair share".
The "fair share" is always a moving target that translates
to "more." Clever accounting, crony capitalism writing
special privileges for certain industries into the tax
code and capital flight tends to thwart the money grabs.
How would reducing the tax remedy this situation? Would it stop the
clever accounting, the use of loopholes or capital flight?
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment insurance, but
to refer to those payments as "welfare," at least the non-extended, base
payments, would be as unfair as referring to Social Security retirement
benefits as welfare. One earns both benefits by working: the employer
pays foo all the UI premiums, and half the SS ones, but the effect is
the same as if wages were proportionately higher and the premiums came
100% from the worker's paycheck.
There's a bit of loose thinking there, I believe. Paying into state-run
and mandatory safety nets such as unemployment insurance or pensions
does not mean you have earned what is being paid out to you if and when
you qualify. What you earn is an *entitlement* to draw on such services
-- the actual value of which is quite unrelated to the amount you paid
in. Case in point: my grandfather worked in the civil service for
almost all his life. When he retired at 63, he received a pension of
67% of his last salary. He continued to receive this hugely generous
remuneration until he died aged 99. There is NO WAY that the pension
contributions made by him and his employer (the state) could possibly
have matched the sums paid out to him.
Oh, that's certainly the case. Meanwhile, someone who dies the day
after he starts collecting Social Security, or even before, has been
cheated in a way someone who had similar amounts into a private
retirement schemes, that pays out something to his estate should
that happen, isn't. Yes, there is a benefit for a surviving spouse,
ex-spouse and surviving minor children, but as a single, childless
fellow, of I kicked off, my designated heir(s) would get bupkis.
The mythology of these programs is that they are insurance schemes.
Private pensions in the US tended to start at 65. Bismarck started
the first government version at 79. It was changed to 65 later.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-retirement-was-invented/381802/
Increased average life expectancy has put the US SS accounts out of
whack over the years, leading to changes in tax rates and the
portion of income subject to the tax, and to the retirement age.
It wasn't so much the increased life expectancy, I'd say, as a deep
unwillingness to engage with the figures as they arrived. The actuarial
data have been available for a long time now. Everybody knew we all
live longer. But for the longest time, nobody was brave enough to step
up to the microphone to tell the workers and voters the inescapable
truth: that to pay out more one has to pay in more. If we do not adjust
the length of the working life, the payments we make and the size of the
payout, then sooner or later the system will collapse. This would be
true even without the overly generous promises and provisions made by
successive administrations at every level.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-04 23:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
it isn't whether tax rates should go up or down, but
whether they are past the point of diminishing returns.
Some people just cannot, or will not, understand that at
some point, taxation becomes counter-productive to an economy.
I don't like government monopoly, mandatory unemployment
insurance, but to refer to those payments as "welfare," at
least the non-extended, base payments, would be as unfair
as referring to Social Security retirement benefits as
welfare. One earns both benefits by working: the employer
pays foo all the UI premiums, and half the SS ones, but the
effect is the same as if wages were proportionately higher
and the premiums came 100% from the worker's paycheck.
And that's the underlying truth that many just cannot seem
to grasp. The fringe benefits of corporate provided
healthcare and unemployment insurance are not free. Every
person who is employed is paying for them. You just don't
realize you are paying for them because you've never been
paid what you are _worth_. And Social Security, the
"lockbox" that has been picked and looted by every criminal
politician who has held office since the day it was
instituted, won't be around for those of us who are still
working...

Wait!

What am i saying?

They can't do that!

Because the people would grab pitchforks and riot in the
fucking streets if they were denied money they rightfully
worked for.

No. They won't do away with SS, they'll just utilize the
"manufactured emergency" as an excuse to raise our fucking
taxes!

Don't you people get it?

It's _all_ diversionary tactics!

(1) Manufacture dependency,
(2) Wait for the economy to implode,
(3) Use the crisis as an excuse to raise taxes and grab more power,
(4) RINSE AND REPEAT!

It's the fucking con job of all time!
Alex W.
2017-03-04 06:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
Um ... no. Sorry, Jeanne, that is quite wrong.

Firstly, rich people have lots of disposable income, and they spend much
of that. Reduce the tax rate and you leave more money in their pockets
to spend. This spending increases indirect taxation revenues and
general economic activity.

Secondly, rich people do not spend all of their disposable income. If
they did so, they would not be rich for long, and most of them are smart
enough not to do so. Instead, much of their disposable income is
invested. This is good for the economy because it pumps money into
businesses. Reducing the income tax therefore increases the amount that
is reinvested into the economy, which is good for businesses and workers
alike.

Third, rich people only rush to stash their loot in overseas accounts if
-- no, IF -- the political situation at home is unstable or the tax on
their incomes *increases*. Hiding their money abroad is a purely
protective measure.

Lastly, the story of rich people finding foreign boltholes for their
loot is very much of a myth these days. Most of these tax havens have
been shut down over the last 10 years or so. Loopholes have been
closed. You cannot wander into a bank in Liechtenstein or Switzerland
or the Channel Islands anymore and deposit wads of cash, no questions
asked. Hell, many banks in those countries will not even accept you as
a customer if you are an American citizen (and have been busy throwing
out US customers for years now) because regulations are so strict and
penalties are so harsh. Banks will no longer let you withdraw large
sums of money (meaning 10,000 or more) in cash, and any transfers of
sums above 10,000 are automatically subject to a notification of your
own tax authorities by the bank. Nor will you be able to turn gold or
jewels into cash these days.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-04 12:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
Um ... no. Sorry, Jeanne, that is quite wrong.
The poorer people, the faster they use their money for consumption. The same
money spread amongst the lower class results in more consumption.
Post by Alex W.
Firstly, rich people have lots of disposable income, and they spend much
of that. Reduce the tax rate and you leave more money in their pockets
to spend. This spending increases indirect taxation revenues and
general economic activity.
Once their needs are sated, they have little incentive to consume. Poorer people
don't have their needs sated.
Post by Alex W.
Secondly, rich people do not spend all of their disposable income. If
they did so, they would not be rich for long, and most of them are smart
enough not to do so. Instead, much of their disposable income is
invested. This is good for the economy because it pumps money into
The world is in a crisis of overproduction. The economy is not limitted by
investment but consumption. That's why China has been trying to increase
domestic consumption to make up for the drop in US comsumption.
Post by Alex W.
Third, rich people only rush to stash their loot in overseas accounts if
Still doesn't change the world overproduction crisis.

And you're still a voodoo economics stooge.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Alex W.
2017-03-05 02:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Giving rich people tax cuts does absolutely nothing for the economy
because they stash that money in their overseas accounts.
Um ... no. Sorry, Jeanne, that is quite wrong.
The poorer people, the faster they use their money for consumption. The same
money spread amongst the lower class results in more consumption.
But most if not all of that consumption is on necessities. In addition,
a low income perforce means an extreme price consciousness. In other
words, poor people spend their money on what they need to survive, and
try to do so the cheapest way possible. This in turn means that they do
not spend on items or services with higher added value ... and those are
what drives the economy, creates profit and ensures jobs.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alex W.
Firstly, rich people have lots of disposable income, and they spend much
of that. Reduce the tax rate and you leave more money in their pockets
to spend. This spending increases indirect taxation revenues and
general economic activity.
Once their needs are sated, they have little incentive to consume. Poorer people
don't have their needs sated.
Needs are shelter, clothing, food, utilities. Being realistic, we may
add transport, TV, access to the internet.

Wealthy folk spend because they can. They spend because they enjoy it.
They spend to display their wealth. They spend to compete with other
wealthy folk. Maintaining an elevated social status requires constant
high-level spending -- the latest MY car (preferably an import, none of
that Detroit muck), this season's handbags and fashions, being able to
brag that one went to the exclusive Caribbean resort for the family
holiday.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alex W.
Secondly, rich people do not spend all of their disposable income. If
they did so, they would not be rich for long, and most of them are smart
enough not to do so. Instead, much of their disposable income is
invested. This is good for the economy because it pumps money into
The world is in a crisis of overproduction. The economy is not limitted by
investment but consumption. That's why China has been trying to increase
domestic consumption to make up for the drop in US comsumption.
Which may be true but it does not change the underlying impulses and
behaviour patterns. For most Western companies, China has been the
ultimate gold rush destination because the moment Chinese customers
acquire some disposable income and wealth, they go forth and buy all
those must-have status accessories.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alex W.
Third, rich people only rush to stash their loot in overseas accounts if
Still doesn't change the world overproduction crisis.
And you're still a voodoo economics stooge.
Overproduction will always be with us, in some form or another.
Companies always take time to respond to demand, so when demand slacks
off there will be an inevitable overhang.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-05 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
But most if not all of that consumption is on necessities. In addition,
Yeah. So? The money is kept in motion.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
%
2017-03-05 03:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Alex W."
Post by Alex W.
But most if not all of that consumption is on
necessities. In
addition,
Yeah. So? The money is kept in motion.
that's what she said last night
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-02 21:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved
roads.
Not true.
Infrastructure benefits us *ALL*. Whereas welfare benefits
only those it subsidizes.
Bullshit. Not having dead people lying in every gutter
benefits everyone. If you want to live in a f*cking hellhole
where children are starving in the street then go pack up
and move to an appropriate hellhole.
Every single poor person given the means to stay alive helps the country.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 09:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Typically the feds take about 35% in total out of a paycheck. Imagine what
you could do with a 35% pay increase.
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved roads.
you fucking moron
Perhaps you haven't noticed but government does not seem to give a shit about the roads anymore unless they are for mass transit. The roads in California, as well as the rest of the infrastructure are crumbling. We have water flooding streets because the fucking pipes are 75 to 100 years old. Do you think private industry would let their profit-making infrastructure go to hell that way? I don't

What is to prevent private enterprise from doing a better job than government is doing? The states are allowed to do anything not forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-04 09:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cloud Hobbit, a vain, scurvy'd, old, filthy, scurry lord, knave who
never yields us kind answer, a rabid dumb innocent. Ye bearded
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Typically the feds take about 35% in total out of a paycheck. Imagine what
you could do with a 35% pay increase.
You would have neither an organized road system nor paved roads.
you fucking moron
We have water flooding streets because the fucking pipes
are 75 to 100 years old. Do you think private industry would
let their profit-making infrastructure go to hell that way?
They did in the UK.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I don't
Yes, but you're a fucking loon.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-04 12:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
100 years old. Do you think private industry would let their profit-making
infrastructure go to hell that way? I don't
For more of those pesky facts, look up PGE and San Bruno.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Siri Cruise
2017-03-02 10:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You are saying that we
the people should have the government force people to contribute money for eh
care of people that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the
first place.
Yes, government is given the power of coercion. And, yes, you're another
libertarian idiot.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-02 13:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You
are saying that we the people should have the government
force people to contribute money for [the] care of people
that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the
first place.
Yes, government is given the power of coercion.
The only power the government has is that which the people
consent for it to have!

[...] that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among [the people], deriving their just powers
from the _consent_ of the governed ("consent" being a key
word here!), [...]
Post by Siri Cruise
And, yes, you're another libertarian idiot.
So Cloud is an idiot if he does not agree with your flavour
of politics? Interesting. I thought this was "alt.atheism",
not "alt.rabid_statist_atheism"!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 09:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You are saying that we
the people should have the government force people to contribute money for eh
care of people that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the
first place.
Yes, government is given the power of coercion. And, yes, you're another
libertarian idiot.
Right, and the other big parties here have done so well protecting our liberty?
I simply want a government that follows logic, just the same as I do with my nonbelief in deities. Government should only do those things that require government and only those thing that are protecting everyone. Trying to get government to fix every problem is not ever going to end well. It just creates more mess and more debt. I see no reason to have government if it is not about protecting the individual and by allowing them to have the authority to use whatever force is required.

It looks to me that the country could use a big change in its view of personal responsibility. I think kids today are going to give us one helluva mess if they don't stop thinking they are entitled to everything.
Post by Siri Cruise
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-04 09:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cloud Hobbit, there's no goodness in thy face. Ye dog-hearted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I think kids today are going to give us one helluva mess if
they don't stop thinking they are entitled to everything.
With a deficit of close to $20 trillion I'd say you lot have the the
kids "one helluva mess", you fucking dopey cunt.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
duke
2017-03-04 12:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 20:43:27 +1100, Kadaitcha Man
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Cloud Hobbit, there's no goodness in thy face. Ye dog-hearted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I think kids today are going to give us one helluva mess if
they don't stop thinking they are entitled to everything.
With a deficit of close to $20 trillion I'd say you lot have the the
kids "one helluva mess", you fucking dopey cunt.
Half of that came in 'ratbama's 8 years.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Siri Cruise
2017-03-04 12:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Right, and the other big parties here have done so well protecting our liberty?
I simply want a government that follows logic, just the same as I do with my
nonbelief in
You don't do logic, idiot. That's been shown to you. You don't do facts and
evidence contrary to your fantasies.

And you're still an idiot.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
duke
2017-03-04 12:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You are saying that we
the people should have the government force people to contribute money for eh
care of people that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the
first place.
Yes, government is given the power of coercion. And, yes, you're another
libertarian idiot.
Right, and the other big parties here have done so well protecting our liberty?
I simply want a government that follows logic, just the same as I do with my nonbelief in deities. Government should only do those things that require government and only those thing that are protecting everyone. Trying to get government to fix every problem is not ever going to end well. It just creates more mess and more debt. I see no reason to have government if it is not about protecting the individual and by allowing them to have the authority to use whatever force is required.
It looks to me that the country could use a big change in its view of personal responsibility. I think kids today are going to give us one helluva mess if they don't stop thinking they are entitled to everything.
There is no doubt about a change being needed.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-02 21:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Kevrob
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people
starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get
sick.
He isn't advocating that.
His PhD is in political science. He's not a theologian or a doctor
of divinity.
"Charity" compelled by the government isn't charity in the Christian
sense, anyway. I'm no Christian, and I don't consider paying my
taxed that fund welfare programs to be "donating to charity."
Making that mistake is on a par with conflating "society"
with "the state."
Kevin R
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is not charity.
It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the government, especially not a
government that has morphed into the monster we have now. It makes no sense
to found a government based on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly
but surely remove those liberties, which is what has been happening
practically since the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not government
which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is spent on salaries.
And private charity has ALWAYS left millions dead and dying. No
organization is big enough to keep people alive and healthy except the
government.
Try and understand what you are really asking for. You are saying that we
the people should have the government force people to contribute money for eh
care of people that we the people don't seem to care enough about in the
first place.
I don't understand how anybody can not see that no matter how much benefit
you think is derived from having government force take of things that people
wouldn't do without force, it is still immoral.
Nonsense. Letting people die or suffer for being poor is what is immoral.

Your way would take us back to Dickensian England. Or the Chicago of
"The Jungle".
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Jeanne Douglas
We don't let people die in the street in great masses anymore.
Yes we do, only now we've made the government responsible for things that
should be each individual person's responsibility and then we complain that
they are not spending enough of somebody else's money to solve it. Nobody
wants to see people dying in the street, but that doesn't make it OK to FORCE
anyone to pay for their maintenance. It just creates new avenues for fraud
and why would you want something like the government doing this kind of job
when they can't even take decent care of those they have sworn to take care
of, Veterans.
I'm forced to pay for nuclear bombs. I'm forced to pay for the war
machine.

I'd rather pay for things that help people, not murder them in mass
numbers.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I give to charity whenever I feel it appropriate, mostly to the Arthritis
Foundation because I know the damage it can do. I always throw my change in
the slot at McDonald's, but I refuse to be happy or complacent about the fact
that the government thinks it has the right to force me to contribute beyond
what I would freely choose.
The unintended consequence of taxing people to force compassion out of them
is that people have less money. Typically the feds take about 35% in total
out of a paycheck. Imagine what you could do with a 35% pay increase.
It never seems to dawn on the people passing the new ways to spend the
taxpayers money, that they at the same time causing economic hardship which
they will then want a new tax to fix. It never ends.
What would that 35% be good for in a 3rd world hellscape that would
evolve.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Alex W.
2017-03-02 06:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel it is
important to remember that it does have its limitations.

One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have the means to fund truly big
national efforts. The very largest corporations might be able to do so,
but only one scheme at a time.

Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private charity. When we
decide to support one charity rather than another, we make very
subjective value judgments which do not really have very much to do with
the actual need or problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so addressed. Of
course it is entirely and indisputably legitimate for us to decide what
to do with our own money, how to spend it and whom to support. But this
does not answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need. If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he will give
$10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and of the three proposals
in front of him gives it all to the local art museum's funding drive to
purchase a Jackson Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered
wives or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does he not have a
moral duty to consider the level of need? What happens when charitable
causes are not sexy, cute or in tune with social values and priorities?
Protecting sharks from extinction, for instance, is urgent,
scientifically sound and ecologically valuable -- but mention sharks and
potential donors will think "Jaws" and "cold-eyed killers of the deep
eating Californian surfer dudes" and end up giving their money to the
local cat and dog shelter because those puppies and kittens are just
sooo cute. This is why I do believe public charity is required to even
out those arbitrary decisions of personal whimsy. It is a corrective.
It can identify and address issues on the basis of need rather than
popularity.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-02 12:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel
it is important to remember that it does have its
limitations. One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have
the means to fund truly big national efforts. The very
largest corporations might be able to do so, but only one
scheme at a time.
So than, unite the charities under one giant umbrella
organization.
Post by Alex W.
Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private
charity. When we decide to support one charity rather than
another, we make very subjective value judgments which do
not really have very much to do with the actual need or
problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so
addressed. Of course it is entirely and indisputably
legitimate for us to decide what to do with our own money,
how to spend it and whom to support. But this does not
answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need. If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he
will give $10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and
of the three proposals in front of him gives it all to the
local art museum's funding drive to purchase a Jackson
Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered wives
or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does
he not have a moral duty to consider the level of need?
What happens when charitable causes are not sexy, cute or
in tune with social values and priorities?
There is absolutely no reason why our governments can't set
up a chartiable organization that will distribute all funds
according to priority and need. Of course, as corruption is
also rampant in goverment, we'd need to a competent
oversight commity to keep a close eye on them.
Post by Alex W.
Protecting sharks from extinction, for instance, is urgent,
scientifically sound and ecologically valuable -- but
mention sharks and potential donors will think "Jaws" and
"cold-eyed killers of the deep eating Californian surfer
dudes" and end up giving their money to the local cat and
dog shelter because those puppies and kittens are just sooo
cute. This is why I do believe public charity is required
to even out those arbitrary decisions of personal whimsy.
It is a corrective. It can identify and address issues on
the basis of need rather than popularity.
Again, there is no reason why the government cannot act as a
public charity. Or we humans could setup a global charity.
What's wrong with that?
Smiler
2017-03-02 21:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 04:57:03 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

<snip>
Again, there is no reason why the government cannot act as a public
charity. Or we humans could setup a global charity. What's wrong with
that?
You are all for choice, yet that would take away _my_ choice of where _my_
charitable donations go. Would you, for example, want your government to
give your donations to a religion?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-04 23:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by Rick Johnson
Again, there is no reason why the government cannot act as
a public charity. Or we humans could setup a global
charity. What's wrong with that?
You are all for choice, yet that would take away _my_
choice of where _my_ charitable donations go. Would you,
for example, want your government to give your donations to
a religion?
Absolutely not.

My suggestion was merely a "rhetorical response" to the many
in this thread who presented arguments supporting government
welfare on the basis that it is, due to size, the "most
capable". In light of the long observed proportional
relationship between the size of an entity and the amount of
fraud/corruption contained within it, i would prefer to
avoid a single monolithic body that controls so much
wealth.

I believe in the corruption _reducing_ power of diversifying
wealth, and the systems that control it. Creating multiple
"laboratories of innovation" is a much wiser solution. Let
the cream naturally rise to the top. Which is what the
american founders had in mind when they created the american
union. Instead of following in the footsteps of all top-down
micro-managers before them, they realized that the federal
government is too far removed from the localities that it
represents. So the States were allowed to be diverse in
their respective mandates.

Large systems are often times so far removed from the
target(s) of their duty that they loose focus and become
"out of touch" with the very people they intend to serve.
The people who best know how to serve you (meaning "general
you"), are always going to be the ones closest to you
(family, friends). And that "circle of familarity" extends
outward (family->friends->city->county->state->nation->world->
universe). Only those closest to you, who are intimately
familiar with you, have the esoteric knowledge required to
know what is best for you. Not some obese royal despot
hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away.

That was my "implict rhetorical point".
Alex W.
2017-03-03 05:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel
it is important to remember that it does have its
limitations. One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have
the means to fund truly big national efforts. The very
largest corporations might be able to do so, but only one
scheme at a time.
So than, unite the charities under one giant umbrella
organization.
That would effectively duplicate state efforts.

It would also introduce a whole new layer of expensive administration.
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private
charity. When we decide to support one charity rather than
another, we make very subjective value judgments which do
not really have very much to do with the actual need or
problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so
addressed. Of course it is entirely and indisputably
legitimate for us to decide what to do with our own money,
how to spend it and whom to support. But this does not
answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need. If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he
will give $10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and
of the three proposals in front of him gives it all to the
local art museum's funding drive to purchase a Jackson
Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered wives
or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does
he not have a moral duty to consider the level of need?
What happens when charitable causes are not sexy, cute or
in tune with social values and priorities?
There is absolutely no reason why our governments can't set
up a chartiable organization that will distribute all funds
according to priority and need. Of course, as corruption is
also rampant in goverment, we'd need to a competent
oversight commity to keep a close eye on them.
There is a solution I find more preferable. Set a percentage of the tax
to be paid (by individuals and corporations alike) and mandate that
taxpayers donate these funds to one or more charities of their choice.
For example, if you earn $100,000 and are liable for $20,000 in income
tax, a set percentage of 10% or $2,000 would have to be given to charity.

One could even play around with this a bit. We could specify maximum
percentages to be given to large charities, or a minimum number of
charities, or restrict donations to religious charities and political
parties.
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
Protecting sharks from extinction, for instance, is urgent,
scientifically sound and ecologically valuable -- but
mention sharks and potential donors will think "Jaws" and
"cold-eyed killers of the deep eating Californian surfer
dudes" and end up giving their money to the local cat and
dog shelter because those puppies and kittens are just sooo
cute. This is why I do believe public charity is required
to even out those arbitrary decisions of personal whimsy.
It is a corrective. It can identify and address issues on
the basis of need rather than popularity.
Again, there is no reason why the government cannot act as a
public charity. Or we humans could setup a global charity.
What's wrong with that?
Government already acts as a public charity. Whether a homeless shelter
or nature reserve is funded by government or by private charities, it's
still charity.
Rick Johnson
2017-03-05 00:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
There is a solution I find more preferable. Set a
percentage of the tax to be paid (by individuals and
corporations alike) and mandate that taxpayers donate these
funds to one or more charities of their choice. For
example, if you earn $100,000 and are liable for $20,000 in
income tax, a set percentage of 10% or $2,000 would have to
be given to charity. One could even play around with this
a bit. We could specify maximum percentages to be given to
large charities, or a minimum number of charities, or
restrict donations to religious charities and political
parties.
So long as they don't increase the current tax rates, I
think this is a wonderful idea! And while this compromise
does violate my core principles, i would be willing to
accept it on the basis that it allows me to influence the
manner in which my money is spent. The feds wield too much
power over our labor capital.

For instance: there is no reason why one penny of my tax
dollars should end up in the hands of middle eastern rulers
who hate america(ns), nor middle eastern rulers who pretend
to like america(ns). Neither should my capital fund any
religious organization -- no matter what cause they are
spending the money on. So even if that cause is curing
childhood cancer, they would gain undeserved power and
legitimacy from my forced contribution. Besides, a secular
charity can be found to replace every religious one. Neither
should my money be given to corporate execs or bankers. I
don't believe in the concept of "too bog to fail". Fuck em.
Let em eat rat shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Heck,
i'll spoon-feed the bastards myself. Maybe they'll learn
something as a result.

Tony Dipshit Hayward: "I just want my life back"
Alex W.
2017-03-05 03:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
There is a solution I find more preferable. Set a
percentage of the tax to be paid (by individuals and
corporations alike) and mandate that taxpayers donate these
funds to one or more charities of their choice. For
example, if you earn $100,000 and are liable for $20,000 in
income tax, a set percentage of 10% or $2,000 would have to
be given to charity. One could even play around with this
a bit. We could specify maximum percentages to be given to
large charities, or a minimum number of charities, or
restrict donations to religious charities and political
parties.
So long as they don't increase the current tax rates, I
think this is a wonderful idea! And while this compromise
does violate my core principles, i would be willing to
accept it on the basis that it allows me to influence the
manner in which my money is spent. The feds wield too much
power over our labor capital.
Let's make one thing very clear: Americans do not pay a lot of tax,
period. Basically, you are already running the world's largest economy
and all the state and infrastructure of a global superpower on a
shoestring budget. Spend five minutes googling the various Tax Freedom
Days around the world, and you will see what I mean.
Post by Rick Johnson
For instance: there is no reason why one penny of my tax
dollars should end up in the hands of middle eastern rulers
who hate america(ns), nor middle eastern rulers who pretend
to like america(ns). Neither should my capital fund any
religious organization -- no matter what cause they are
spending the money on. So even if that cause is curing
childhood cancer, they would gain undeserved power and
legitimacy from my forced contribution. Besides, a secular
charity can be found to replace every religious one. Neither
should my money be given to corporate execs or bankers. I
don't believe in the concept of "too bog to fail". Fuck em.
Let em eat rat shit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Heck,
i'll spoon-feed the bastards myself. Maybe they'll learn
something as a result.
For pragmatic reasons, it may sometimes be useful to pay evil bastards.
Case in point: the EU used to pay Colonel Qaddafi handsomely so he would
stop the boat people from crossing into Europe. It worked a treat, and
was immensely cost-effective.

As for "too big to fail", I would disagree with you. We can debate the
merits (or lack thereof) of saving specific firms and institutions, but
the fact remains that some companies are so essential to the functioning
of whole industries, the economy and the nation that to let them fail
would impose unacceptable harm. Take one example: Deutsche Bank of
Germany. They are not one of the world's biggest banks, not by a long
shot. Nor would even the German banking sector collapse if the banks
were allowed to go under. But because Deutsche has underwritten $72
TRILLION of derivatives, the insolvency of that bank would cause a
second GFC as that sum would be wiped off the assets of major economies
around the globe in an instant. And this isn't play money. It's your
job, and mine, that will be affected, your savings and mine, and those
of everybody around us. Do you really want to let your employer go
under because they cannot access the funding they need for their daily
business because their bank and every other bank has no funds to release
because one single player held all the cards and got wiped out?

It's hateful and disgusting and morally offensive. But we do live in a
world which is so interconnected and interdependent that we have to make
deals and bail out at least some of these firms if we want to survive
ourselves.
Don Kresch
2017-03-05 04:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
There is a solution I find more preferable. Set a
percentage of the tax to be paid (by individuals and
corporations alike) and mandate that taxpayers donate these
funds to one or more charities of their choice. For
example, if you earn $100,000 and are liable for $20,000 in
income tax, a set percentage of 10% or $2,000 would have to
be given to charity. One could even play around with this
a bit. We could specify maximum percentages to be given to
large charities, or a minimum number of charities, or
restrict donations to religious charities and political
parties.
So long as they don't increase the current tax rates, I
think this is a wonderful idea! And while this compromise
does violate my core principles, i would be willing to
accept it on the basis that it allows me to influence the
manner in which my money is spent. The feds wield too much
power over our labor capital.
Let's make one thing very clear: Americans do not pay a lot of tax,
Any tax is a lot.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

hypatiab7
2017-03-03 10:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Alex W.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel
it is important to remember that it does have its
limitations. One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have
the means to fund truly big national efforts. The very
largest corporations might be able to do so, but only one
scheme at a time.
So than, unite the charities under one giant umbrella
organization.
Post by Alex W.
Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private
charity. When we decide to support one charity rather than
another, we make very subjective value judgments which do
not really have very much to do with the actual need or
problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so
addressed. Of course it is entirely and indisputably
legitimate for us to decide what to do with our own money,
how to spend it and whom to support. But this does not
answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need. If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he
will give $10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and
of the three proposals in front of him gives it all to the
local art museum's funding drive to purchase a Jackson
Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered wives
or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does
he not have a moral duty to consider the level of need?
What happens when charitable causes are not sexy, cute or
in tune with social values and priorities?
There is absolutely no reason why our governments can't set
up a chartiable organization that will distribute all funds
according to priority and need. Of course, as corruption is
also rampant in goverment, we'd need to a competent
oversight commity to keep a close eye on them.
Post by Alex W.
Protecting sharks from extinction, for instance, is urgent,
scientifically sound and ecologically valuable -- but
mention sharks and potential donors will think "Jaws" and
"cold-eyed killers of the deep eating Californian surfer
dudes" and end up giving their money to the local cat and
dog shelter because those puppies and kittens are just sooo
cute. This is why I do believe public charity is required
to even out those arbitrary decisions of personal whimsy.
It is a corrective. It can identify and address issues on
the basis of need rather than popularity.
Again, there is no reason why the government cannot act as a
public charity. Or we humans could setup a global charity.
What's wrong with that?
Many people prefer to choose their own charities to donate to. They don't
want others to choose for them. Plus, there might be some charities they
don't want to donate to. And, who would determine how the money was to be
divided? There's already a system set up for emergencies. The Republicans
keep trying to dismantle it. Someone (I think it was Joe Bruno) mentioned
a politician named Cantor. Cantor was a Republican who voted against
emergency money for his constituents after a big storm caused floods and
all kinds of destruction in his area. Cantor was terribly shocked when he
was voted out of office soon after. He was on the Republican high road, and
he ended up in the junk heap. Screw your constituents and they'll happily return the favor.
Don Kresch
2017-03-02 13:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel it is
important to remember that it does have its limitations.
One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have the means to fund truly big
national efforts.
You presume that there should be such things.
Post by Alex W.
Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private charity.
So what.
Post by Alex W.
When we
decide to support one charity rather than another, we make very
subjective value judgments which do not really have very much to do with
the actual need or problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so addressed. Of
course it is entirely and indisputably legitimate for us to decide what
to do with our own money, how to spend it and whom to support. But this
does not answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need. If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he will give
$10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and of the three proposals
in front of him gives it all to the local art museum's funding drive to
purchase a Jackson Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered
wives or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does he not have a
moral duty to consider the level of need?
Nope. You clearly have zero understanding of what morality is;
you, like the fundy theists, confuse morality with aesthetics.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-03-04 09:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No collection of money at the point of a gun or threat of prison is
not charity. It is tyranny. Charity is not the job of the
government, especially not a government that has morphed into the
monster we have now. It makes no sense to found a government based
on the idea of individual liberty and then slowly but surely remove
those liberties, which is what has been happening practically since
the moment the ink dried on the Constitution.
Private charity is the correct place and means for charity, not
government which spends 75% of any money collected for ANY project is
spent on salaries.
While I am very much in favour of private charity, I feel it is
important to remember that it does have its limitations.
One is size: even a Bill Gates does not have the means to fund truly big
national efforts. The very largest corporations might be able to do so,
but only one scheme at a time.
Another is the emotive, arbitrary nature of private charity. When we
decide to support one charity rather than another, we make very
subjective value judgments which do not really have very much to do with
the actual need or problem being addressed by that charity, or with the
urgency and social impact of the needs and problems so addressed.
Isn't that a value judgement? Who are you to say what the social impact or the urgency. That's the very best thing about private charity, it's completely democratic. You only give to the charity of your choice. If one does not exist for the thing you think requires charity, then you can create one.

Of
Post by Alex W.
course it is entirely and indisputably legitimate for us to decide what
to do with our own money, how to spend it and whom to support.
But this
does not answer the moral conflict between exercising our rightful
choice and actual need.
Where's the moral conflict? The only way a conflict could arise is if for some reason you think that we are born with a debt to some or all of our fellow humans. The only debt I believe we owe each other is the courtesy of being treated as we wish to be treated for as log as we continue to be treated that way.

If Joe Q decides that in 2017 he will give
Post by Alex W.
$10,000 of his hard-earned money to charity and of the three proposals
in front of him gives it all to the local art museum's funding drive to
purchase a Jackson Pollock rather than to a local shelter for battered
wives or the protection of the habitat of the lesser crested
reed-warbler, that is unquestionably his right -- but does he not have a
moral duty to consider the level of need?
Why would he? How can they in any way be his responsibility?

What happens when charitable
Post by Alex W.
causes are not sexy, cute or in tune with social values and priorities?
Then it is their job to come up with a better more convincing argument for why group "X" should get the money instead of group "Y."
Post by Alex W.
Protecting sharks from extinction, for instance, is urgent,
scientifically sound and ecologically valuable -- but mention sharks and
potential donors will think "Jaws" and "cold-eyed killers of the deep
eating Californian surfer dudes" and end up giving their money to the
local cat and dog shelter because those puppies and kittens are just
sooo cute. This is why I do believe public charity is required to even
out those arbitrary decisions of personal whimsy.
IOW you think the state is better equipped to know what is truly important. Moreso than we mere humans. But wait< isn't government made up of humans.
You know the joke about what an elephant is? A mouse built to government specs.


It is a corrective.
Post by Alex W.
It can identify and address issues on the basis of need rather than
popularity.
So, to each according to his need from each according to their ability?
One of the most devastatingly bad ideas ever IMO.

No one is saying the 50 states can not provide their own medical coverage, they are allowed to under the 10th amendment.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-03-04 09:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cloud Hobbit, hang thyself, ye dread-bolted juggling fiend. Thou art
an unmuzzled foul and dangerous, a pus-filled gnome, a blackguardly
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Alex W.
we make very subjective value judgments
Isn't that a value judgement?
You total fucking fool.
--
"You're a wholly evil fucker. You take the 'I am a bastard' stance, and
extrapolate it out to 'I am an absolute uncaring bastard with the time
and means to make almost anyone suffer.' Whereas other people have
some faint nascent ideal about 'lines that should not be crossed', you
barge through taboo, and straight through 'unthinking prejudice', right
into "knock 'em down and then fuck them over."

David Andrew Clayton to yours truly.
Clave
2017-02-24 17:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
Better read the article.
I did. You're lying. Specifically, you're lying about what constitutes
compassion. Leftists want to shower undeserved goodies on deadbeats and
they call that "compassion", and then when someone objects both to the
scale and to the fostering of dependency, the leftists shriek, "What?!
Have you no 'compassion'? You monster!"

Left-wing welfare programs aren't advocated out of a sense of compassion
- not in any way at all. They're pushed as part of an attempt to buy
votes and seize power.

The author of the piece did not advocate against compassion. He
criticized the left's misuse of the word. He is right.
Clave
2017-02-24 21:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
Better read the article.
I did. You're lying. Specifically, you're lying about what constitutes
compassion. Leftists want to shower undeserved goodies on deadbeats and
they call that "compassion", and then when someone objects both to the
scale and to the fostering of dependency, the leftists shriek, "What?!
Have you no 'compassion'? You monster!"
Left-wing welfare programs aren't advocated out of a sense of compassion
- not in any way at all. They're pushed as part of an attempt to buy
votes and seize power.
The author of the piece did not advocate against compassion. He
criticized the left's misuse of the word. He is right.
I see. So, all of that discussion of how much everything costs (BTW, NOT adjusted for inflation) was just to... what, exactly?
The entire premise for rejecting the "liberal" definition of compassion is based on a straw man.
No, it isn't.
"Well, if liberalism is the politics of kindness, it follows that its adversary, conservatism, is the politics of cruelty, greed, and callousness."
Says who?
The left.
"This assessment also provides an answer to the question of why liberals always want a bigger welfare state."
It's true.
Another absolutely faulty lie.
It isn't; it's a true statement. Leftists *do* always want a bigger
welfare state.


It's funny what he calls a "welfare state" and doesn't include. How
about the billions of dollars we hand over to oil companies every year
that they sure as fuck don't need.

Who hands that over to them? Not the state. Consumers do, for goods
and services received. That's called "the market."


How many times have Democrats tried to kill those subsidies,

What subsidies?
only to have right wingers put the back? That's not welfare?
No.
Like I said, this guy is against the "welfare state" and he sees most of it as a waste and assumes that all liberals love "the welfare state."
He's right.
On the other hand, his definition is so narrow that he doesn't include MOST welfare in this country.
Wrong.
Yeah I have no problem with welfare for the poor. But I DO have a problem with welfare for the rich, which actually represents MORE money than the welfare you and this fuckwit offer want to cut the shit out of.
That's a lie. Did you not see that the five big welfare programs
account for two-thirds of all federal outlays? They do.
Like I said, this guy wants to cut the shit out of what he calls welfare and claims that we liberals are all for an expanding welfare state.
Go back into the text and find where he actually proposes cutting
anything. Then cite it right here.
To actually relieve poverty, we should expand welfare for the poor and to pay for it, we should be gutting welfare for the rich.
You are exactly the type of phony-compassion liberal he's describing.
You don't *want* to do anything to alleviate poverty. What you want to
do is try to demonstrate your compassion, your great caring, by stealing
from makers and giving to takers. You don't actually care about
alleviating poverty.
My point is, why is a "Christian" advocating for cuts to welfare for the poor
Still waiting to see your citation showing any advocacy for cuts.
Clave
2017-03-01 18:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:20:07 -0800, Clave
we should expand welfare for the poor and to pay for it, we should be gutting welfare for the rich.
Milt want some of those rich folks money...
Arf arf, Sparky.
You have zero impulse control, do you?
BTW, fuckwit, If I wanted rich people's money, I'd have more of it.
Baloney. You can't earn an honest dollar, and you're incompetent as a
crook as well.
Milt has failed at everything he has ever attempted and that included
begging for money on the Internet...
And yet, I hardly ever post on Usenet and
You used to post chronically, and everything you wrote - every last word
of it - was a lie.

I particularly liked the lie you kept repeating that the president of
the United States can pardon people for convictions in state courts.
That's complete bullshit, of course, but you kept perseverating at it
for years.
Clave
2017-02-24 17:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
Better read the article.
You didn't read it. That's obvious.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-25 00:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-25 01:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
What excellent piece was that?
The excellent piece that Hartung linked, which showed that liberal
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. Contemporary liberals do not want
to alleviate poverty; they only want to show that they "care", and even
that is cynical and disingenuous because they don't truly care about the
downtrodden. They use the downtrodden as pawns.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-25 02:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
What excellent piece was that?
The excellent piece that Hartung linked, which showed that liberal
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. Contemporary liberals do not want
to alleviate poverty; they only want to show that they "care", and even
that is cynical and disingenuous because they don't truly care about the
downtrodden. They use the downtrodden as pawns.
Ah, the drivel then.
No, it's an excellent piece, "kiddoflake", and you, being snarky and
immature, can't engage with it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-25 02:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
What excellent piece was that?
The excellent piece that Hartung linked, which showed that liberal
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. Contemporary liberals do not want
to alleviate poverty; they only want to show that they "care", and even
that is cynical and disingenuous because they don't truly care about the
downtrodden. They use the downtrodden as pawns.
Ah, the drivel then.
No, it's an excellent piece, "kiddoflake", and you, being snarky and
immature, can't engage with it.
Yes. Its drivel
<chuckle>

No, loser "kiddoflake" who can't engage with adults, it isn't. It
really is a good piece. I know you didn't read it. You can't read
serious adult material like that. You've told us so, many times.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-28 18:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
What excellent piece was that?
The excellent piece that Hartung linked, which showed that liberal
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. Contemporary liberals do not want
to alleviate poverty; they only want to show that they "care", and even
that is cynical and disingenuous because they don't truly care about the
downtrodden. They use the downtrodden as pawns.
Ah, the drivel then.
No, it's an excellent piece, "kiddoflake", and you, being snarky and
immature, can't engage with it.
Yes. Its drivel
No
Yeah, it is.
No. Sorry, "kiddoflake", but you lose again.

It really is a good piece. It convincingly lays out that liberals'
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. It's *all* about them and their
self regard.

It really is.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-28 19:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[followups vandalism by infantile self-hating Jew repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
What excellent piece was that?
The excellent piece that Hartung linked, which showed that liberal
"compassion" is nothing of the kind. Contemporary liberals do not want
to alleviate poverty; they only want to show that they "care", and even
that is cynical and disingenuous because they don't truly care about the
downtrodden. They use the downtrodden as pawns.
Ah, the drivel then.
No, it's an excellent piece, "kiddoflake", and you, being snarky and
immature, can't engage with it.
Yes. Its drivel
No
Yeah, it is.
No. Sorry, "kiddoflake", but you lose again.
It really is a good piece.
Nope.
Yep. You didn't read it. I know you didn't, because it's way above
your reading level.

<chuckle>
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-25 02:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Yeah, that Jesus guy was a loser too, wasn't he?
Nothing to do with what was in that excellent piece. Hartung is mostly
a gratuitously provocative troll, but he occasionally posts very
valuable stuff, and that piece was one such. It really did get to the
very heart of the issue of phony liberal "compassion."
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative compassion. That's just more politicizing of anything and everything by right wingers. There's just compassion, period.
Cut the bullshit, left-wing stooge. Leftists say that they have a
monopoly on compassion, and their so-called compassion is why they want
an ever-expanding welfare state. But it's a lie. True compassion for
the needy and downtrodden plays no role at all in their aggressive push
to grow the welfare state. You didn't even read the piece. It has a
multiplicity of excellent insights.
Rudy Canoza
2017-02-28 19:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rich people don't get stuff for free
It's just that they can afford it...
I don't have a problem with people buying what they wish to buy with
their own money. Do you?
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-01 15:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Like soldiers?
...or food stamps...
Like the families of soldiers?
...or Medicaid...
You mean like the elderly?
I don't wish to make Matt feel stupid, but Medicare is for the elderly.
Medicare is the health coverage for senior citizens. Medicaid is for the elderly,
No, "kiddoflake".
..or in free government housing...
You mean like ... soldiers?
Not sure of your point here, but whatever our soldiers receive from the
people, they pay for many times over. They may not pay in cash, but
believe me they pay.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-01 18:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Like soldiers?
...or food stamps...
Like the families of soldiers?
...or Medicaid...
You mean like the elderly?
I don't wish to make Matt feel stupid, but Medicare is for the elderly.
Medicare is the health coverage for senior citizens. Medicaid is for the elderly,
No, "kiddoflake".
Yeah,
No, "kiddoflake".
Medicaid is based on income.
*Not* on age, "kiddoflake".

<chuckle> Why do you like being wrong so much, "kiddoflake", you vile
self-hating Jew?
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-01 18:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Like soldiers?
...or food stamps...
Like the families of soldiers?
...or Medicaid...
You mean like the elderly?
I don't wish to make Matt feel stupid, but Medicare is for the elderly.
Medicare is the health coverage for senior citizens. Medicaid is for the elderly,
No, "kiddoflake".
Yeah,
No, "kiddoflake".
Medicaid is based on income.
*Not* on age, "kiddoflake".
So, to the kiddo, there are no poor elderly.
No, "kiddoflake", you vile self-hating Jew, that's not what I said. You
said, "Medicaid is for the elderly". That's false. *Some* elderly
people may be Medicaid recipients, but it is false to say that the
program is "for" the elderly, "kiddoflake", you filthy self-hating Jew.
Rudy Canoza
2017-03-01 19:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Like soldiers?
...or food stamps...
Like the families of soldiers?
...or Medicaid...
You mean like the elderly?
I don't wish to make Matt feel stupid, but Medicare is for the elderly.
Medicare is the health coverage for senior citizens. Medicaid is for the elderly,
No, "kiddoflake".
Yeah,
No, "kiddoflake".
Medicaid is based on income.
*Not* on age, "kiddoflake".
So, to the kiddo, there are no poor elderly.
No, "kiddoflake", you vile self-hating Jew, that's not what I said. You
said, "Medicaid is for the elderly". That's false. *Some* elderly
people may be Medicaid recipients, but it is false to say that the
program is "for" the elderly, "kiddoflake", you filthy self-hating Jew.
You are a depressing misogynistic anti-Semite stalker.
No, "kiddoflake", I'm your tormenter. I crush and humiliate you every
time. For some sick reason, you keep coming back for more. Must have
something to do with your self-hatred, eh?
Clave
2017-03-01 18:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Almost no one gets welfare these days.
Bullshit. There was an average of over 3.8 million monthly TANF
recipients in 2016.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2016_recipient_tanssp.pdf

There are nearly 5 million "federal rental assistance" families.
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/4-13-11hous-US.pdf

There are more than 55 million Medicaid beneficiaries.
http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/total-medicare-beneficiaries/?currentTimeframe=0
...or food stamps...
Time-limited and they pay a lot more in taxes than they get.
You have no fucking idea if they pay more in taxes, you lying shitbag.
In fact, shitbag, most SNAP recipients pay *NO* federal taxes, and
probably damned little state income tax.
...or Medicaid...
Most people on Medicaid never actually use it and
Bullshit.
virtually all will pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they will ever get.
More bullshit. You just made that up. You have not a shred of evidence
for it, and no way of knowing it.
..or in free government housing...
There is no such thing.
Housing subsidies and vouchers are 100% free to the recipients.
...etc.
I literally have no idea what I'm talking about.
That's right.
Clave
2017-03-01 18:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Like soldiers?
...or food stamps...
Like the families of soldiers?
...or Medicaid...
You mean like the elderly?
..or in free government housing...
You mean like ... soldiers?
Not sure of your point here, but whatever our soldiers receive from the
people, they pay for many times over. They may not pay in cash, but
believe me they pay.
Absolutely agreed. Which it's why it's puzzling that so many of your ilk complain so mightily about cash assistance for the poor. Many of those poor are veterans.
You have no idea, of course, how many of them are veterans.
Clave
2017-03-01 18:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced to die if they get sick.
Pretty sure he isn't advocating destroying the middle class wage
earners so that others can get stuff for free.
No one gets anything for free
Unless they're on Welfare...
Almost no one gets welfare these days. Also, it's time-limited and they pay a lot more in taxes than they'll ever collect.
!
...or food stamps...
Time-limited and they pay a lot more in taxes than they get. Also, they keep prices lower for everyone else.
!
...or Medicaid...
Most people on Medicaid never actually use it and virtually all will pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they will ever get.
..or in free government housing...
There is no such thing.
...etc.
OK, you responses have told me everything I'll ever need to know about your level of knowledge.
Shook lies in every post. Virtually everything he says is a lie. He
has *NO* way of knowing most of his claims, which anyway are false. For
example, claiming that dole scroungers pay more in taxes than they
receive in dole handouts - a complete lie, and Shook would have no way
of knowing what they pay in taxes anyway.

As I said a bit ago, I particularly liked the lie Shook kept repeating
that the president of the United States can pardon people for
convictions in state courts. That's complete bullshit, of course, but
Shook kept perseverating at it for years.
Davej
2017-03-01 19:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clave
From 2014, but still true today.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/
Hard to believe a "Christian" clergyman is advocating that
old people starve and that old and poor people just be forced
to die if they get sick.
He isn't advocating that.
Then what is he advocating? It's hard to find the pony in
that pile of horseshit.
Loading...